I shot my third and final experiment with a handheld camera to get more dynamic camera movements and more severe reframing effects. When trying to experiment with reframing on a tripod, you relay on actors moving exclusively on a certain plane. But when the camera becomes handheld, the range of movement possible for both camera operator and actors becomes far more dynamic. Ideally I’d be using some sort of steadicam device for this shot, but seeing as though it’s only an experiment, I think the focus is on the conception of the coverage rather than the steadiness of the shot.

And I am happy with the coverage. In my opinion, exercise three is the most interesting exploration of reframing I’ve done, and it has the most solid coverage. I’m particularly pleased with how I followed Luke to the wall after he got up from his chair. That move feels very fluid but also decisive to me. I’m also pleased with the first and last frames. I think I often struggle to find good places to start and end the shot, but in this particular scene it feels like suitable opening and closing frames. For a shot with so much movement of the actors required, I was worried that by the end of it their pacing around all over the place, back and forth, would look tired, but I think I chose appropriate camera movements to cover that movement without making it boring.

Of course, nothing’s ever perfect and in this case, there was no sound recorded for the shot. I’m actually entirely unsure how I managed to record without sound, because Matt was using the same camera on (I thought) the same settings as me and his shots turned out fine. But, it is what it is, and filmmaking is definitely what it is. Just one more thing to make sure of next time.

I’ve been pretty lucky to have formed something of a symbiotic relationship with Luke and Matt over the last few weeks while we make our way towards the end of the semester. All three of us have quite solid ideas about what we want to explore in these experiments and we’ve become quite efficient at helping one another realise this. Most Tuesdays we meet up, borrow equipment and take turns shooting an experiment of our own. It’s really good having a solid group who are always on the same page and get along well.

I think that over the whole semester one aspect of filmmaking that’s been constantly emphasised, both explicitly by Robin and simplicity by our group tasks, is the importance of collaboration. I’ve properly come to realise how absolutely imperative it is to shooting something to have a number of people co-operating on the set. Even my skeleton crew with Matt and Luke is so much better than working alone. Ideally we would be collaborating with perhaps one or two more people so there could be more flexibility in the roles, especially in scenes with more than one actor required, but no one else seems to be as keen on utilising the class time as we are.

I shot this scene twice – one time in a continuous shot, moving the camera between the multiple frames of the shot, and once with cuts. I was trying to demonstrate how the process of reframing allows a certain coverage that cutting in post production denies. In this scene, the edited scene comes across as jarring because some of the cuts disobey traditional rules of editing. This jarring effect was a deliberate choice on my part. I came up with the ideas for frames and realised that if cut together, some of these frames would have a dissonant effect on a viewer. But, as I think I proved with this scene, by flowing between the frames without cutting, the scene is not awkward, and the audience can accept all of the frames together.

This is a very practical concept – so many times there are a great deal of ideas for frames that come to me, but they would look bad cut together, or they break this rule or that rule, but reframing offers a solution to that.

While I feel that the scene proved what I intended it to, and therefore worked as an experiment, I wasn’t greatly happy with it overall. The last frame in particular is pretty sub par – I was keen to end it with a unique shot but didn’t have any good ideas. On top of this, we were very stressed for time as we had a full class standing outside and glaring at us, waiting to get in. This meant I wasn’t able to fully conceive a great coverage and I was forced to accept first takes, even if they weren’t great.

This week I completed my first exercise towards my project for the rest of the semester, that is, a practical study of reframing in coverage. I used a script from one of the earlier scenes we had shot for an interesting reason. I remember the group who first shot the scene actually used some movement which I found quite interesting. I can’t remember the specifics but I know they played around with which characters were in the frame at any point in time. Once I remembered this I thought I’d like to have my own go at shooting that scene. This exercise was in reframing without moving the actual camera, only using pans and tilts.

It’s a pretty vague script, (presumably why Robin gave it to us in the first place) and there’s very few movement instructions clearly given in it. This meant I was able to work the movement into the script that I felt was appropriate. We frequently discuss approaches to blocking in class, and the two options are usually: 1) Director has autonomy and conceives the blocking himself after the coverage and 2) Director and crew run through script with the actors and conceive a coverage to accommodate their blocking. My method was, as they probably tend to be, a combination of the two. We blocked it step by step, and some frames or movements were determined by my camera following the actors’ movement and some vice versa. When Matt walks away briefly and is left on the edge of the frame is an example of the blocking being created to fit a frame I wanted to shoot – I wanted to isolate him in the frame so to satisfy that I had him walk away.

The blocking was the part of the process I was most happy with. I used camera tape to mark the actors’ cues and it was extremely helpful, especially considering I was shooting from a tripod and unable to simply work around missed marks. I was happy with my concepts for frames, but my camerawork was a little bit sloppy. Next time I’ll get someone else to operate camera, I think, and see if that makes a discernible difference.

I think moving on, my next experiment will be shooting one scene static and then shooting the same scene with a moving camera, to see what difference it can make.

The famously cryptic word. It originally refers to paper art (cutting). How then, is it arguably the most utterly cinematic concept of all? Mise en scene, for example, was a phrase conceived to talk about plays, which obviously have far more in common with films than cutting paper. Montage too, refers to cinema specifically, and has its origins in Eisenstein and Kulashov. So how do all these concepts affect a film, and can they be used in conjunction with each other?

I’ll start by briefly going over the three concepts, in order of easiest to understand (in my opinion) and explain to hardest. Montage is, at its core, an editing technique. I’ve noticed that ‘montage’ and ‘montaggio’ are used in the credits of foreign films, French and Italian, to denote the editor. I think this is telling, and while there may not a strict definition, it is acceptable to understand ‘montage’ as editing. This may be simply because it’s the most common form of editing. It creates time and space, elements obviously integral to a film.

Mise en scene is, as I mentioned, an old term, initially discussing plays. It refers to everything within a scene. This ostensibly means the set, the actors, the props, but on further questioning can be seen to describe the atmosphere and even coverage of a scene. It is notoriously hard to define, and I don’t know if I’ve earnt the right to do it, but I’m going to assign it a temporary definition for the sake of this discussion: the visual and non visual aesthetic of a film.

And lastly, Decoupage. In my research I finally came across a quote which made it finally click (somewhat) in my brain. It’s from Timothy Barnard, and goes as follows: ‘an understanding … that sequencing was conceived before and during the shooting of a film, not in the cutting, and that the camera played not merely a pictorial role but instead structured the film through its formal treatment and sequencing of the mise en scène.’ Big quote. I’ll leave it at that as far as defining decoupage because I’m sure it does a better job than me.

I think that at the core of these three concepts is an interrelationship. Barnard’s description of decoupage hinges on an understanding of mise en scene. If decoupage is the form, then mise en scene is the meaning. But can meaning also come from form? Of course. Consider a scene’s literal mise en scene – that is, the set, actors, lights. The scene’s decoupage would influence how the mise en scene affects an audience. If the scene’s coverage was largely conceived to highlight, for example, a romance, then the light would take on a certain meaning, and the actors’ performances would be read a certain way – this can be achieved through the preconception of a scene’s decoupage.

Where, then, does montage fit into this odd trinity? The above definition of decoupage presupposes a lack of power in montage as a post-production element, but I think grants it power in pre-production and production. The director takes on the role of montage himself, making cuts with the camera rather than with the scissors. Instead of shooting a coverage, and handing over the rushes and reins to the editor, he shoots a decoupage, which influences the editor and informs a certain edit. This is assuming that they are totally separate roles, which, of course, is rarely the case.

I think doing research helped me shuffle around and evaluate what a lot of confusing terms really meant in the greater scheme of filmmaking. I read immensely confusing pieces of writing on all three concepts, and I still have very little grasp on Bunuel’s writing on decoupage, but I think I’ll revisit it after writing this and developing a greater understanding of the term.

For the rest of the semester I’m going to be looking at the act of re-framing, i.e. including several distinct frames in a single shot through the act of moving the camera and/or actors. I decided on this after a really helpful chat with Robin who was able, as usual, to articulate and provoke my own thoughts far better than I could myself.

The first steps in the process of experimentation are to be the mimicry of several methods of reframing that I’ve seen. A particular shot in Return of the Prodigal Son uses only tilts on a tripod (and potentially minute dolly movement) to create 4 or 5 distinct frames. I think the most important part of reframing to note is that the camera and frame are not continually moving, but remain more or less static in between the ‘re-frames.’ As was pointed out by a very clever man whose name I’ve forgotten, it’s almost like they’ve come up with a storyboard which could be 5 different shots, but just decided to, instead of cutting, move the camera immediately to the next one. I think that’s an excellent way of looking at it and I’ll definitely be experimenting with creating a traditional storyboard and shooting it in one or two takes.

I also intend to investigate moving actors/background to create a re-framing effect. I haven’t totally considered this yet, but potentially movement in the background of the scene and of the actors within the frame can achieve a similar effect. I think that’s a really interesting and less explored side of the work.

Of course there are logistical difficulties which accompany this specific kind of coverage. If the plan is to cover an entire scene with one shot, that one shot has to be essentially flawless. I’m sure this is an issue i’ll come up against when I’m trying out my experiments.

I’m ashamed to admit that The Scene was not my first studio preference. As such, I might have been in a bad mood when reading the studio guide for the first time. I can’t remember. I do remember distinctly having very, very little idea of what the next semester would entail. The concept of coverage seemed to me interchangeable with that of filmmaking. If a film is comprised of many scenes, surely all filmmaking was was creating scenes? While that might remain true, the approach to the scene as a completely independent piece of work has changed the meaning of what I consider when I re-read the studio guide.

I was confused also about the ‘two meanings’ of coverage – one which holds the script above the camera, and one which revels in the artistry and unique nature of cinema. While I was aware that obviously some films created more interesting and dynamic scenes, I kind of felt that the script was to be obeyed first and foremost. I think that now, after creating entirely disconnected scenes, it’s less important than the way a director chooses to express the action through the camera. Because all we shoot is taken entirely out of context, the meaning of the scene rests entirely in how the director reads it and subsequently covers it. I mentioned in previous posts that our group noted a large element of tension in the Night Train scene, while the other group found it comedic. We covered the scenes according to how we read them respectively, and both became legitimate standalone scenes.

That, I think, summarises most succinctly my understanding of The Scene at this point. It’s irrelevant what proceeds or succeeds any given scene, each one is a self contained piece of work which requires its own thought and attention, and most specifically, decoupage.

Coming into Tuesday’s class, my only real goal was to create some sort of dynamic moving shot and focus on the framing as well. A lot of the time if I do a moving shot the framing falls apart because I’m more focussed on keeping the subject in the shot. I like watching movement on camera especially when the camera is also in motion, but I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do to explore that idea as best I could. While we were shooting Justin’s scene (which looked ace) in Building 9, I noticed that the lighting in the elevators was pretty interesting and conceived a basic tracking shot that follows a character into an elevator, waits with him, and then departs as he does. I was quite happy with the end product, especially in regards to my goal of maintaining a good frame throughout. The highlights and shadows in the shot interacted together and had an attractive symmetry.

It was also a good experience to work with directors who really knew what they wanted to do. A lot of group activities in class become more collaborative – the director doesn’t specifically have a ‘vision’ as such but is often simply striving for practical coverage, so everyone chips in. These exercises were helmed by directors who had a specific focus, which made everyone’s work easier as it was made more clear.

I think the one major thing to take away from Tuesday’s class was the need to be organised – there was too much of a fuss at the start of class trying to split up into groups and it detracted from our shooting time. We should probably try to get a bit better and organising ourselves before we have to shoot /real/ stuff.

I was talking about David Fincher with a friend the other day, and he reminded me of a famous quote of his – “People will say, “There are a million ways to shoot a scene”, but I don’t think so. I think there’re two, maybe. And the other one is wrong.” I remember hearing this quote when I was first getting into film and watching heaps of movies, and I assumed he was right because I thought he was a good director.

Now that I’ve been involved in making short films and studied it at Uni, that quote really irritates me. How ridiculously arrogant do you have to be to presume that you are the one person in the entire world who knows how to shoot a scene objectively right? No two directors will ever shoot a scene the same exact way, get the same exact coverage, but that doesn’t make either of them theoretically right or wrong.

The Night Train scene was filmed 3 times. Once by each group, and once in the original. While the original was obviously more technically impressive, as it was made by professionals with professional equipment, if our basic ideas were carried out more professionally, they would still be valid ways to cover a scene. They may not be as impressive or as inventive, but does that necessarily make them wrong?

If, say, Spike Jonze, for argument’s sake, was given the script to Fight Club, would the film be remotely similar? Probably not. Would it be as good? Maybe. Would it be objectively ‘wrong’? Not in any sense of the word. There are always going to be directors who see a scene one way and directors who would shoot it another. That’s the nature of art. Directors who have advanced film may not have been deemed ‘correct’ by Fincher had he been present in their day. Would he have agreed with Orson Welles’ coverage of Citizen Kane? Who gives a crap? It doesn’t matter what another director would do with a scene.

I finally escaped the torture that is being in front of the camera and was able to direct a scene. It was really fun.

It was a good idea to allocate time for planning the day beforehand because it meant we were able to arrive and immediately get into what we needed to do. There was a bit of rain, and we’d been planning to shoot outside, so there was a bit of a scare that we’d have to replace it with an indoor location which really wouldn’t have worked as well – of course, this is a very real threat on any outdoor shoot, but thankfully one we were able to work around today. Thankfully nothing got damaged and no one broke their arm on the slippery steps. Praise be to OH&S Jesus.

Having someone who’s as proficient with cameras as Bryan to be my camera operator was a huge blessing. We’d roughly storyboarded yesterday, but if there were any changes I wanted made or anything different within the frame, he always knew how to do it, credit to him. Also shoutouts to Luke for being a great clapper guy and general odd job man.

I think everyone’s fairly proficient in most roles by now, so I think the main thing I’m interested in doing is working with proper actors – when it’s group members acting, they’re often reluctant and fairly camera shy – there are exceptions, of course (like Justin, who is a hero), but I think it’s hard to learn that aspect of directing when there are no actual actors around.

I think in the end I was pretty happy with the shots we got. There were some, like the close up of Matt, that I realised we could have let go for longer – for example, he says only one line in his close up, but I would have liked to use the same angle for is line immediately after, but we didn’t shoot it. The main issue was sound. I still don’t really know what I’m doing there, mainly in regards to editing it. I’ll really have to practice working with making the sound smooth and consistent this week.